See your link here
Norm Matloff advances the H-1B discussion
26 comments- TAGS:H-1B, layoffs, Norm Matloff
- IT TOPICS:Careers, Government & Regulation
My recent Editor's Note and a related blog posting on the H-1B visa issue have drawn quite a few comments, the vast majority of which came from readers who strongly oppose the H-1B program. Despite the large number of comments that I would characterize as mean-spirited, the discussion has at least been advanced. And no one has advanced it more admirably than Norm Matloff.
Matloff, a computer science professor and a leading critic of the H-1B program, publishes an excellent H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter. His Feb. 2 e-newsletter addressed my Editor's Note, and because I felt it provided an invaluable contribution to the discussion, the full text is reprinted below, with his permission. If you'd like to subscribe to the e-newsletter, just e-mail Matloff at matloff@cs.ucdavis.edu.
***
Enclosed below is an editorial by Computerworld editor Don Tennant. Though his main point is that many H-1B critics should drop their in-your-face attitudes, his subtext is that they are exaggerating the extent of the problem.
Tennant is a good guy in my book. I enjoyed talking to him at a conference at the UCLA Anderson School of Management about a year ago, at which he did a great job of moderating a panel discussion that was, to say the least, contentious. See my posting on the discussion at http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/AronDebate.txt. Nevertheless, we all have our blind spots, and I have the sense that Tennant's is that he's viewing the H-1B critics as protectionists who want to block workers superior to them in talent from entering the U.S. labor market. I too support bringing in "the best and the brightest" from around the world, but as I've shown before, only a small percentage of H-1Bs are in that league. Tennant's view that most are in that league is greatly clouding his vision on this issue.
At any rate, he's way off base in his piece below. Though the H-1B critics do indeed use language that I believe may be hurting their cause, there is nothing "anti-foreign" about it. As Tennant notes, people do get emotional when they find their livelihood threatened.
What Tennant is missing is that it's the loss of livelihood they're worked up about, not the foreignness of the workers who are replacing them. (As if they wouldn't object to being replaced in their jobs by Americans, an absurd notion.) I communicate with H-1B critics every day, and I rarely (though not never) see xenophobic or racist remarks. Indeed, a techies.com survey in 2001 found that "Prejudice is not seen as a major roblem...U.S. tech workers don't resent foreign workers themselves, the survey found, but are more likely to blame employers for any problems."
What's most interesting about Tennant's piece is his citing of the infamous Cohen & Grigsby videos, in which the law firm shows how to exploit deep legal loopholes in the laws to avoid hiring Americans (in the case of employment-based green cards) and to avoid paying market wages (in the cases of both green cards and H-1B visas). Tennant asks, "which is more objectionable -- a slimy lawyer or a creepy stalker?" I don't approve of stalking, even in fantasy, but Tennant is making a false comparison, comparing greed to desperation, not very fair.
Far more important, though, is Tennant's implicit claim that Cohen & Grigsby is a rogue law firm, not representative of standard practice in the profession. Tennant is dead wrong on this point. Cohen & Grigsby is thoroughly mainstream in this regard.
For instance, readers of this e-newsletter know the outrageous comments by a well-known immigration attorney in a wide-circulation legal newsletter: "Employers who favor aliens have an arsenal of legal means to reject all U.S. workers who apply" (Joel Stewart, "Legal Rejection of U.S. Workers," Immigration Daily, April 24, 2000; available at www.ilw.com/articles/2000,0424-Stewart.shtm). See also Stewart's "Dear Abby"-style help column for employers, at http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0606-citations.shtm in which he advises an employer how to hire a foreign worker instead of an American applicant, even though the American "appears qualified and has good references." Stewart is a prominent leader in the immigration law field, who literally "wrote the book" on the U.S. recruitment portion of the green card process, "The PERM Book," a standard reference in the field.
Recall the controversy involving Cisco last year. Their ad stated that only U.S. citizens and permanent residents could apply--but applications were routed to Cisco's immigration law firm rather than to HR, so that the law firm could figure out ways to reject the Americans. (See the files whose names begin with "Fragomen" in http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive) Cisco's law firm, Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP, is the largest in the nation. The founder's bio notes that he has served as chief counsel on the U.S. House Immigration Subcommittee, was an adjunct professor at the NYU School of Law, serves on the board of the immigration think tank, the Center for Migration Studies, and so on. You can't get any more mainstream than Fragomen or his firm, and yet they too operate like Cohen & Grigsby, in Tennant's words, "slimy" (though again, in full compliance with the law, as confirmed by DOL after the Cisco incident).
Tennant should hardly be surprised at any of this. After all, a good immigration lawyer is no more likely to refrain from using loopholes in H-1B/green card law than a good tax lawyer is to pass up loopholes in the tax code. So, no, C&G is not a rogue law firm at all. On the contrary, they are a pillar of the legal community, representing lots of household name firms. Lebowitz is a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. And their practices shown in the outrageous videos are standard for the industry.
***
Print
Email this
Digg this
